ISSUES

GOOD GOVERNMENT

On every matter that comes before the City Council, I will always ask who benefits — my employer (that’s you), or some special interest pushing its own agenda. I’ll be a fierce protector of the public interest and public lands, and a fierce opponent of taxpayer giveaways to special interests.

Land speculators, developers, and others with business before the city represent a powerful lobby, but they shouldn’t have the loudest voice in setting public policy. I will not accept campaign contributions from developers or other special interests. I will ask participants in public hearings to disclose any financial ties to applicants. I will seek more transparency in city government.

  • The conventional wisdom about housing affordability – that it’s just a simple supply-and-demand problem – is both reductive and wrong.

    To be sure, we do need more housing units, especially units to buy. But looking only at the supply side ignores a lot about housing affordability.

    We also need to consider whether buyers earn enough to afford housing. If our “solution” to housing affordability is vastly more apartments with 90%+ market-rate units, the primary beneficiaries will be an ever-smaller number of apartment building owners. We need to add more affordable units, or add options that build equity, or ideally do both.

    It’s also true that just adding density, by itself, does nothing to improve housing affordability. Orange County saw denser development than Ventura County over the past 30 years, and also faces affordability challenges. State mandates have forced denser construction here, but have not improved affordability; on the contrary.

    We also need to consider whether the removal of federal and state supports has made housing more or less affordable; and whether one-size-fits-all state mandates have had any meaningful impact at all on housing supply. In both cases, the answer is a resounding “no.”

    Three things actually do improve housing affordability. I’ve been involved with all of these:

    • If you want more affordable housing, increase the number and percentage of affordable units relative to market-rate units. Not all the cost of this should be borne by builders or property owners; given that the business community is among the loudest calling for more workforce housing, and is among the first to benefit, it should be part of an inclusionary housing solution.

    • Increase the supply of affordable units to buy. I voted for the city’s development of 78 townhouses to buy at Hillcrest and Erbes because it will build equity for residents – and equity is the key to social mobility.

    • I’ve also lobbied Sacramento legislators for years to reform a state law that restricts the number of condominiums being produced. I support a proposal pending this year from Assemblymember Buffy Wicks that, if enacted, will likely provide more options to purchase a home in Thousand Oaks, not just amass a collection of canceled rent checks.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

Housing

I’m not a fan of ultra-density housing or one-size-fits-all solutions imposed from outside. And I’m not a fan of no growth either; over the past eight years as a planning commissioner I’ve approved far more housing, measured by applications or units, than I’ve rejected. Still, I think it’s mistake to try reducing housing affordability into simple supply-and-demand terms, or to believe we can grow our way out of this complex problem. More density, by itself, will only produce … more density. On the whole, density alone has not made housing more affordable; on the contrary.

Our central issue is this: We produce too many luxury units, and not enough housing people can afford. Over the past eight years, Thousand Oaks met 614% of its quota for luxury housing, and 3% of its quota for families of 4 making up to $100,350/year. These are teachers, firefighters, and medical technicians. These are people without whom our city can’t function.

The score is 614-3: That’s the problem we need to address. We have several tools at our disposal, but we’re not using them to their full advantage:

  • Bringing our inclusionary housing ordinance, which requires affordable units, out of the coma induced by the City Council in 2009

  • Eliminating in-lieu fees, resulting in more production of affordable units on site

  • Adding mixed-use development in existing shopping areas, such as Janss Mall and The Oaks, that would provide more housing and benefit existing businesses

  • Planning for more village centers distributed throughout the city

  • Exploring community land trusts, which actually can improve affordability

  • Providing incentives to promote equity and ownership, either in condos or homes. Equity is an excellent way to build strong communities. Just adding many thousands more apartment units, almost all at market rates, only builds equity for people who own apartment buildings

ENVIRONMENT

We have a climate crisis, but also an opportunity. We can find new ways to recapture water and help mitigate a record drought. We can encourage conversion of lawns into beautiful and drought-tolerant native landscaping. We can make our city more bike-friendly with safer paths to connect neighborhoods. We can lead the state by adopting greener building practices. And we can incentivize a transition away from gas-powered leaf blowers and other small landscaping appliances, which are noisy and harmful for operator and environment alike.

It’s no accident that this is one of the most beautiful areas in the world. It took controlled, measured approaches to planning like SOAR, Measure E, the Parks Initiative, and protected tree ordinances. I’ve consistently voted for projects that protect and enhance environmental safeguards, and against projects that would damage our environment.